Which anchorage device is the best during retraction of anterior teeth? An overview of systematic reviews
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective: To evaluate the available evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of different types of anchorage devices. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of different electronic databases was conducted for systematic reviews investigating different anchorage methods published up to April 15, 2021. Any ongoing systematic reviews were searched using PROSPERO, and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey. No language restriction was applied. Screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings from moderate- and high-quality reviews. Results: Fourteen systematic reviews were included (11 were of moderate/high quality). Skeletal anchorage with miniscrews was associated with less anchorage loss (and sometimes with anchorage gain). Similarly, skeletal anchorage was more effective in retracting anterior teeth and intruding incisors and molars, resulting in minor vertical skeletal changes and improvements in the soft tissue profile. However, insufficient evidence was obtained for the preference of any anchorage method in terms of the duration of treatment, number of appointments, quality of treatment, patient perception, or adverse effects. The effectiveness of skeletal anchorage can be enhanced when: directly loaded, used in the mandible rather than the maxilla, used buccally rather than palatally, using dual rather than single miniscrews, used for en-masse retraction, and in adults. Conclusions: The level of evidence regarding anchorage effectiveness is moderate. Nevertheless, compared to conventional anchorage, skeletal anchorage can be used with more anchorage preservation. Further high-quality randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the available evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of different types of anchorage devices. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of different electronic databases was conducted for systematic reviews investigating different anchorage methods published up to April 15, 2021. Any ongoing systematic reviews were searched using PROSPERO, and a grey literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar and OpenGrey. No language restriction was applied. Screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Information was categorized and narratively synthesized for the key findings from moderate- and high-quality reviews. Results: Fourteen systematic reviews were included (11 were of moderate/high quality). Skeletal anchorage with miniscrews was associated with less anchorage loss (and sometimes with anchorage gain). Similarly, skeletal anchorage was more effective in retracting anterior teeth and intruding incisors and molars, resulting in minor vertical skeletal changes and improvements in the soft tissue profile. However, insufficient evidence was obtained for the preference of any anchorage method in terms of the duration of treatment, number of appointments, quality of treatment, patient perception, or adverse effects. The effectiveness of skeletal anchorage can be enhanced when: directly loaded, used in the mandible rather than the maxilla, used buccally rather than palatally, using dual rather than single miniscrews, used for en-masse retraction, and in adults. Conclusions: The level of evidence regarding anchorage effectiveness is moderate. Nevertheless, compared to conventional anchorage, skeletal anchorage can be used with more anchorage preservation. Further high-quality randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.
참고문헌 (38)
- Wahl N, "Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 15:skeletal anchorage", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 134, pp.707~710 (2008)
- Proffit WR, "Contemporary orthodontics" (2006), Elsevier Health Sciences
- Melsen B, "Different approaches to anchorage : a survey and an evaluation", Angle Orthod, 67, pp.23~30 (1997)
- Lai EH, "Threedimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 134, pp.636~645 (2008)
- Cole WA, "Accuracy of patient reporting as an indication of headgear compliance", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 121, pp.419~423 (2002)
- Samuels RH, "A national survey of orthodontic facebow injuries in the UK and Eire", Br J Orthod, 23, pp.11~20 (1996)
- Blum-Hareuveni T, "Blinding endophthalmitis from orthodontic headgear", N Engl J Med, 351, pp.2774~2775 (2004)
- Feldmann I, "Orthodontic anchorage : a systematic review", Angle Orthod, 76, pp.493~501 (2006)
- Kuroda S, "Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage : comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 135, pp.302~309 (2009)
- Park HS, "Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage", Angle Orthod, 74, pp.703~710 (2004)
- Odman J, "Osseointegrated implants as orthodontic anchorage in the treatment of partially edentulous adult patients", Eur J Orthod, 16, pp.187~201 (1994)
- Ren Y, "Mini-implants for direct or indirect orthodontic anchorage", Evid Based Dent, 10, pp.113~ (2009)
- Heo W, "En masse retraction and two-step retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult Class I women. A comparison of anchorage loss", Angle Orthod, 77, pp.973~978 (2007)
- Xu TM, "Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 138, pp.544~ (2010)
- Bobak V, "Stress-related molar responses to the transpalatal arch : a finite element analysis", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 112, pp.512~518 (1997)
- Kojima Y, "Effects of transpalatal arch on molar movement produced by mesial force : a finite element simulation", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 134, pp.335~ (2008)
- Liu YH, "Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion", J Oral Rehabil, 36, pp.687~695 (2009)
- Sharma M, "Mini-screw implant or transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction : a randomized clinical trial", J Orthod, 39, pp.102~110 (2012)
- Al-Sibaie S, "Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion : a randomized controlled trial", Eur J Orthod, 36, pp.275~283 (2014)
- Li F, "Comparison of anchorage capacity between implant and headgear during anterior segment retraction", Angle Orthod, 81, pp.915~922 (2011)
- Papadopoulos MA, "Clinical effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants : a meta-analysis", J Dent Res, 90, pp.969~976 (2011)
- Jambi S, "Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods", Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, pp.CD005098~ (2014)
- Antoszewska-Smith J, "Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during enmasse retraction : a systematic review and metaanalysis", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 151, pp.440~455 (2017)
- Diar-Bakirly S, "Effectiveness of the transpalatal arch in controlling orthodontic anchorage in maxillary premolar extraction cases : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Angle Orthod, 87, pp.147~158 (2017)
- Jayaratne YSN, "Maxillary incisors changes during space closure with conventional and skeletal anchorage methods: a systematic review", J Istanb Univ Fac Dent, 51(3 Suppl 1), pp.S90~S101 (2017)
- Xu Y, "Comparison of the effects of miniimplant and traditional anchorage on patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion", Angle Orthod, 87, pp.320~327 (2017)
- Becker K, "Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Int J Implant Dent, 4, pp.35~ (2018)
- Khlef HN, "Evaluation of treatment outcomes of En masse retraction with temporary skeletal anchorage devices in comparison with two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with dentoalveolar protrusion : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Contemp Clin Dent, 9, pp.513~523 (2018)
- Khlef HN, "Enmasse retraction of upper anterior teeth in adult patients with maxillary or bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion : a systematic review and meta-analysis", J Contemp Dent Pract, 20, pp.113~127 (2019)
- Alharbi F, "Anchorage effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrews compared to headgear and transpalatal arches : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Acta Odontol Scand, 77, pp.88~98 (2019)
- Liu Y, "Comparison of anchorage efficiency of orthodontic mini-implant and conventional anchorage reinforcement in patients requiring maximum orthodontic anchorage : a systematic review and metaanalysis", J Evid Based Dent Pract, 20, pp.101401~ (2020)
- Tian H, "Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique : a systematic review and meta-analysis", BMC Oral Health, 20, pp.278~ (2020)
- Moher D, "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses : the PRISMA statement", Int J Surg, 8, pp.336~341 (2010)
- Smith V, "Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions", BMC Med Res Methodol, 11, pp.15~ (2011)
- Shea BJ, "AMSTAR 2 : a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both", BMJ, 358, pp.j4008~ (2017)
- Becker L, "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions" (2009), The Cochrane Collaboration
- Upadhyay M, "Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients : a randomized controlled trial", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 134, pp.18~29 (2008)
- Jadad AR, "A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews", CMAJ, 156, pp.1411~1416 (1997)